New Ocean,
Glad to see you've ignored butalane's relevant question about your own personal experience with flying high performance birds. Also glad to see you've engaged in a healthy dose of internet hypocrisy, calling butalane an "anonymous snob" (what are you?) Finally, good work calling out people in the aerospace industry for being wrong about casing materials they work with every day (hands on work, not just internet reading) and people far more accomplished in the hobby realm than yourself.
I didnt ignore his question, I rejected it as irrelevant and rude. I removed the snob comment not because of you, but because I spoke to him personally and realized that it was too harsh and it is inevitable that people would challenge what I say not on facts or merits, but on personal attacks. That is the way of life in online forums. For example, I could ask why you, with 35 posts, are qualified to talk about this. Would that be fair? I think not.
Since June, you've been preaching the N5800 as the greatest rocket motor ever created. This alone shows your a.) ignorance and b.) lack of experience in propellant and motor design outside of the hobby rocketry realm. Yes, the N5800 blows all other aluminum-cased hobby motors out of the water. Why? Because it begins to approach and take advantage of basic properties of all high performance propellants in the aerospace industry that are largely ignored in most hobby motors due to casing material constraints and the greater appreciation in the hobby market for effects motors as opposed to highest-possible ISP.
It is the greatest motor in the hobby if by great you mean the most effective at high performance flight within the impulse limits of the hobby. Obviously it is only a competition between it and other N motors, and among N motors, it wins. If there could be a slower burning version, that version would win out. In my opinion, the greatest motor in the hobby is the N10,000 because... why the f!@$! not? It is a mean motor and that I how I likes them. Honorable mention for the N1100 too. Three flavors of a really great thing. But even then, the N5800 stands out ahead of the pack in total impulse and vacuum delta v potential.... and I mean far ahead of the pack.
If you think I am obsessed with this one motor, you should see me talk about the O 10,000.
Also, and this keeps coming up... the ISP in hobby motors is not much worse than pro motors. It is the mass fraction that we lack. Big difference, and the N5800 wins out in performance because through several means (including a good but not exceptional ISP) it achieves the best mass fraction in a large motor with a perfect aerodynamic length to width ratio.
In June, you challenged me to make a more efficient motor than the N5800. I did so, in the same sized case, and flew it at LDRS. I'd give you data, but the flight scrambled the accelerometer data beyond recognition. So, I've made another, bigger motor to fly at Balls (see you there I expect) with a higher-g-capable accelerometer along for the ride. I'll be sure to post back and let you know how it works.
I am sorry that was still smouldering in the back of your mind. I would love to hear more about your rocket and motor, as this is my fav. hobby so there is no such thing as too many rocket pics or data sets. I can't know what you have not proven. Tell us more about your motor now, no need to show the data even. Just describe it for us.
You state that composites are "struggling" to handle these kinds of flights. butalane is talking about the use of steel and composites as motor hardware, first off. Second, yes, aluminum has been the go-to choice in the HOBBY realm for over 20 years because it's cheap, easy to machine, and does just fine for upper-end hobby flights (my project at Balls has an aluminum fincan). When composites are applied beyond rudimentary amateur setups (cheap curing oven and vac bag setup, at best) they are superior in use and functionality. Just like the N5800, aluminum it does great for it's application. But that doesn't mean that there's not a better solution.
I would not put words in his mouth, but the impression that I get is he is talking about rocket airframes and less about motor casing. I sure have been... since there is no choice in motor casing here. For solid rocket motor casings, composites are often better. That is why they have been used since the 1960s in pro. motors. That says nothing about high performance rockets and airframes. If you look to the professional rockets, metal is still king overall. I have no vested interest in the metal lobby. I only care about rockets surviving their flight. It does behoove me to ask other to explain how composites are better than metal. I still have not seen that answer.
In corner #1 we have Butalane/prophecy/MClark and in corner #2 we have...
Wait, I don't care who is in corner #2, my bet is on corner #1
It is not like that at all, please be nice.